Report on the Recommendations from the

Classroom and Laboratory Utilization and Effectiveness Committee

The committee’s recommendations are organized under each charge provided by the President to the committee. The charges are listed below in bold. Under several of the charges, there is a recommendation to appoint a standing committee. These recommendations all refer to the same standing committee. A recommended charge and committee composition for this standing committee is provided on the last page. In parenthesis is a letter identifying the subcommittee/committee responsible for recommending actions to accomplish the charge.

This committee classifies instructional spaces by function into three categories: classrooms, instructional labs, and computer labs.

o Classrooms are any rooms, including instructional spaces with laboratory equipment and/or student computer workstations, routinely scheduled by the Scheduling Center for credit classes.

o Instructional labs are discipline specific and/or computer labs that are not scheduled for classes, but used primarily for demonstration and research.

o Open computer labs have student computer workstations and are not routinely scheduled for credit courses, but are typically used by all students to access email and the Internet, to complete homework, and to access course materials.

Other definitions include:

o First priority allocation is an ownership concept. The first priority owner is the department with first priority in scheduling a classroom. All but five classrooms at the university have first priority departmental owners.

o Restricted and standard status of classrooms involves issues of access. A change in restricted to standard status does not affect the first priority allocation. Restricted classrooms are available only to the first priority owner and may not be used by other departments without permission of the first priority owner. Standard classrooms are scheduled by the first priority owner, and if unused by the first priority owner, may be scheduled by the Scheduling Center for another department’s class.

Develop utilization targets for all classrooms.

§ Recommendation:

The President should establish the university classroom utilization target at the existing THEC guideline. The THEC guideline is 30 hours per week and 67% of stations occupied for general classrooms, and 24 hours per week and 80% utilization for classrooms with laboratory equipment. The 67% guideline is applied to each class, and to each classroom. The 30 hour guideline is based on daytime hours 8 AM – 4 PM Monday – Thursday, and 8 AM – 1:15 Friday, and should be applied on a per classroom basis. (A)
The President should appoint a standing committee to recommend policy on issues of space. This standing committee should:

Ø Recommend processes to monitor adherence and exceptions to the THEC guideline on classroom and instructional laboratory space utilization. (A)

Ø Develop criteria for the restriction of classrooms for use by other departments. Evaluate all current restrictions for adherence to new criteria. (B)

Ø Recommend allocations of new and existing spaces, including the review of first priority allocations. (The CLUE committee supports the use of first priority allocations, but recommends a review of current allocations on the basis of university goals.) (B)

§ Rationale:

With growing enrollments and few new classrooms being constructed, classroom space is a critical resource. Management and planning of classroom needs should be based on statistical data, and not anecdotal information. Classroom utilization should be analyzed at both the institutional level and the individual classroom level to provide much needed information for space decisions. For example, Paulien and Associates analyzed classroom utilization using Fall 1995 data. The results were that MTSU averaged 30 hours per week, with 63% student station occupancy. Percentage of station use exceeded THEC expectation for rooms with 30 or less seats. Classrooms with 31 or more seats were below the THEC guidelines of 67% student station occupancy. A PFI analysis sent to TBR on Fall 2000 data indicates student station utilization to be 60.4%. The Scheduling Center reports that approximately 35 classrooms did not have courses scheduled during the Fall 2001 semester.
In addition, almost two-thirds of all classrooms are restricted in use to a specific department. Many of these restrictions were granted on the basis of master classroom equipment. Because TAF now funds approximately 75% of all instructional equipment, the argument that these spaces should be protected because they were equipped through departmental resources is no longer valid. Restricted classrooms are not utilized at THEC guidelines, resulting in our best classrooms and technology being underutilized.

§ Update:

The Scheduling Center and EVPP Office are monitoring classroom use for adherence and exceptions to the THEC standards through spreadsheet analysis. Campus Planning and the EVPP Office are monitoring other academic spaces through PFI updates and EVPP walkthroughs. (A)
Departments are encouraged to schedule all labs and course related events for inclusion in the consideration of 30 hour use between the hours of 8 and 4 Monday through Thursday, 8 - 1:15 Friday. Utilization of night and weekend hours will also be reviewed. The Scheduling Center has emailed procedures to schedule labs and course-related events to the committee to review before being distributed to departments. (A)
The Scheduling Center is assisting departments in scheduling classes that will utilize 67% of the seat capacity in their first priority assignments before this becomes a requirement next year. Review of those classrooms where 67% is not maintained may indicate a mismatch of available capacity with university needs. The committee approved a capacity change process that will be extended to include requests for change in function. Both will be included in the web site for academic space http://www.mtsu.edu/~pvpaa/space.htm . (A)
The number of restricted rooms has been reduced from 67% to 50%, with 65 additional restricted classrooms to be submitted to the Deans for additional review. Any modifications required for classroom to be unrestricted will be funded through the EVPP classroom maintenance account. The committee’s recommendation for the restriction (limited access) of classroom space is the safety of students and the safety of equipment (excluding master classroom technology). This unrestricting effort has increased the number of classrooms available for use during the peak times, and reduced the number of courses without classrooms during the initial scheduling period to 50% of previous years. (B)
The committee will review first priority allocations of classroom space based on several criteria such as growth, enrollment, faculty, and programs. The committee’s discussions about allocations of space have initiated discussions outside the committee. For example, office spaces have been allocated to college level domains. The EVPP Office coordinates a space allocation process for the division that seeks CLUE committee input on instructional spaces, and follows college domains on other academic space. The EVPP Office recommends and decides future owners of new academic space, coordinating with the college deans. An official space allocation process has not yet been determined for the university. These have historically been decided at the President’s cabinet level. (B)

Establish a system of annual review for continuous improvement of labs and classroom space.

§ Recommendation:

Information Technology Division (ITD) should develop a web-based report to provide information to manage instructional spaces, and for users to access for information about instructional space features. (R)
ITD should publish a listing of university site licensed and other software with appropriate contact information. (C)

The President should appoint a standing committee to recommend policy on issues of space. This standing committee should:

Ø Develop standard definitions for all instructional spaces, for both types of spaces and features within spaces. (B)

Ø Establish a base configuration for the computer hardware and software in all instructional spaces. (C)

Ø Recommend reconfiguration of instructional spaces based on university trends and goals. (B)

The President should appoint a team, consisting of Campus Planning, Inventory, Scheduling Center, Facilities, a faculty member, and ITD. This team will: (R)

Ø Conduct an annual walkthrough to update classroom information.

Ø Recommend improvements to the standing committee.

Ø Investigate bar-coding processes to better track inventory items.

§ Rationale: Space issues are ongoing and complex. A standing committee will provide continuity and opportunities for increased understanding and input on space issues. Easily accessible and current information is critical in fully utilizing instructional spaces and technology. Five departments currently maintain information independently and there have been no mechanisms to update and share classroom information. With the appointment of a team to walkthrough classrooms annually and the development of a joint report by ITD, these five departments can begin to work together to keep each other informed of changes and to develop comprehensive information on instructional spaces. Their agreement on a common language to describe instructional spaces will be useful in developing processes to better utilize instructional spaces and technology.

§ Update:

The prototype of the web-based report has been approved and will be implemented spring 2003. This database includes definitions for space types and features and will be confirmed by a walkthrough each semester by the EVP P Office. The Resource 25 web viewer supplements this report by making the classroom schedules available. The team suggested above will review the information for accuracy and to make recommendations. The faculty member will be chosen by the Faculty Senate President. Barcoding will be pursued as the budget permits. (R)
A listing of software supported by ITD can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~oitacad/itres/s_hware.html#software and a list of site licenses available at MTSU can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~oitsupp/software/ (C)
The base configuration for classroom technology can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~pvpaa/techacc/mcequip.htm (C)
An office listing will be available in March for updating by the departments. Campus Planning will release PFI information to the departments for updating in April. (R)

Discuss and recommend ways to consolidate computer labs for more effective uses of resources.

§ Recommendation:

The President should appoint a standing committee to recommend policy on issues of space. This standing committee should:

Ø Design a process to review modification of existing computer labs, such as the creation of new computer labs. Encourage departments to share existing instructional spaces. (C)

Ø Plan and implement tiers of computer labs, consolidating as necessary to provide access within available operational support, and to encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative interaction. (The CLUE committee supports the use of an existing lab for 24-7 student access.) Provide economic incentives, such as adequate staffing, regular upgrades, etc., for computer labs that consolidate into tiers. (C) (TAF)

The Instructional Technology Committee should prioritize proposals for consolidated open computer labs and for multidisciplinary efforts higher than individual departmental proposals. (TAF)

§ Rationale: The current culture has encouraged departments to create individual, but similar instructional spaces. Mostly, these changes occur without a university review of the change in the context of university goals. Departmental equipment purchased through TAF is typically not shared with other departments; resulting in students in one major having the latest equipment and students in a complementary major being denied use. Created through TAF and other funds, departments have approximately 99 instructional spaces with student workstations. Once created, the departmental budgets are not adequate to support these computer labs. The departments tend to expect TAF and the university to supplement the operational support necessary to maintain these spaces. TAF funds are not adequate to support all 99-student lab spaces so the committee recommends a plan to study and implement a tiered lab concept. With consolidated space and resources, the committee believes it is possible to create several student centered lab areas, with at least one offering 24-7 access. A suggested way to organize computer labs would be to provide at least three tiers: Tier one – university computer labs with maximum access and resources; Tier two – college and departmental computer labs that are more discipline specific in function and resources, but accessible to students; and Tier three - computer labs that are very discipline specific and are restricted in access to departmental majors.

§ Update:

Upon recommendation of the CLUE committee, the Instructional Technology Committee (TAF) conducted surveys about the open computer labs on campus and subsidized their budgets with TAF funds. The TAF committee encourages multidisciplinary proposals and discourages the creation of duplicate instructional spaces. (TAF)
The open computer labs were organized into tiers by the Instructional Technology Committee (TAF). These tiers are: Tier zero funding to be determined: University Computer Lab in BAS. Tier one funded at 65%: Walker Library all floors, Education LRC 101, ADA in Walker Library. Tier two funded at 45%: Foreign Languages – BDA 303A, HPERS – AMG 204, Journalism – COMM 130, University Writing Center – Peck 326, Math – KOM 252/267, Nursing – CKNB 205, Computer Science - KOM 351, and Music – SFA 121. (TAF)

Recommend ways for greater student access to computer laboratory resources.

§ Recommendation:

The President should appoint a standing committee to recommend policy on issues of space. This standing committee should:

Ø Develop recommendations for integrating new and developing technologies into the campus community; e.g. wireless connectivity. The recommendations should provide for the maximum accessibility to students. (C) (TAF)

ITD develop a training program for all student lab assistants. (C) (TAF)

The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) establish funding to provide appropriate operational support for open consolidated computer labs. (C) (TAF)
EVPP equip open consolidated computer labs with discipline specific software as requested by students and faculty. (C) (TAF)

· Rationale: A continuous student complaint is that computer labs are not staffed with knowledgeable support or the required discipline specific software and peripherals to complete their projects. Consolidating spaces and resources can provide the opportunity to address this student concern. The committee believes operating funds should be established to equip upper tier computer labs with the specific software and hardware requested by students. Additionally, TAF funds and operational funds should be made available to staff these computer labs for the hours requested by students, including at least one 24-7 lab. Increased wireless connectivity further supports the 24-7 access students need. Training programs should be designed to support student requests for assistance on selected software and hardware within the computer labs. With these comprehensive, consolidated computer labs available, departmental computer labs could be more available for courses, increasing valuable classroom resources.

· Update:

o A pilot 24/7 computer lab with help desk opened March 17 in an existing lab in BAS. A student help computer lab training program will also be piloted to centralize the training of student computer lab help and to standardize student help pay. This standardization of student pay will be extended throughout Academic Affairs. Users of the 24/7 computer lab will be solicited for the types of software and hardware needed, and these will be implemented after the opening. (C)

ITD is pursuing several wireless projects through TAF and other funding. (TAF)

Discuss how to create a collaborative environment for the use of lab and classroom resources.

§ Recommendation:

EVPP establish economic incentives and university procedures to facilitate and overcome university barriers when developing collaborative or interdisciplinary courses, programs, and partnerships within the university. (C)
EVPP encourage and promote faculty collaboration through incentive programs such as workload time and professional development opportunities. Make all incentive programs and procedures for collaboration available and visible to faculty. (C)

§ Rationale: The committee recognizes that our university culture has encouraged and promoted individual efforts over collaborative projects. They further understand that TBR issues such as workload, promotion and tenure, and productivity have served as barriers to team teaching and collaborative projects. Therefore, the committee recommends economic incentives and institutional support to shift university culture toward sharing and collaboration. Although the recommendation is directed to the Executive Vice President and Provost, the committee recognizes these incentives must be campus wide.

§ Update:

The Instructional Technology Committee (TAF) gives priority to collaborative or multidisciplinary projects. The committee will be requesting other funding committee give priority to multidisciplinary and collaborative projects. (C) (TAF)
A new “collaboratory” is being discussed to experiment on multidisciplinary projects. This effort begins with a collaborative web site that will be expanded into a proposed faculty/student collaborative computer and technology lab. (C)

Standing Committee on Space Issues

Recommended committee appointments

The President should ask the Ad Hoc Committee on Classroom Laboratory Utilization and Effectiveness to serve until June 2003. Beginning July 2003, the President should appoint a standing committee consisting of the following, or their representatives.

President, Student Government Association

Additional representative from the student body

Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

VP for Information Technology

Director, Campus Planning

Director, Facilities Services

Director, Academic Technology Planning and Projects

Scheduling Center Representative

Faculty Senate President

Faculty Senate Past President

Academic Dean

Academic Department Chair

Five Faculty Members, representing individual colleges

Recommended charge for standing committee on space issues:

1. Recommend processes to monitor adherence and exceptions to the THEC guideline on classroom space utilization.

2. Develop criteria for the restriction of classrooms for use by other departments. Evaluate all current restrictions for adherence to new criteria.

3. Recommend allocations of new and existing spaces, including the review of first priority allocations. (The CLUE committee supports the use of first priority allocations, but would recommend a review of current allocations on the basis of university goals.)

4. Develop standard definitions for all instructional spaces, for both types of spaces and features within spaces.

5. Establish a base configuration for the computer hardware and software in all instructional spaces.

6. Recommend reconfiguration of instructional spaces based on university trends and goals.

7. Design a process to review modification of existing instructional spaces, such as the creation of new computer labs. Encourage departments to share existing instructional spaces.

8. Plan and implement tiers of computer labs, consolidating as necessary to provide access within available operational support, and to encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative interaction. (The CLUE committee supports the use of an existing lab for 24-7 student access.) Provide economic incentives, such as adequate staffing, regular upgrades, etc., for computer labs that consolidate into tiers.

9. Develop recommendations for integrating new and developing technologies into the campus community; e.g. wireless connectivity. The recommendations should provide for the maximum accessibility to students.

CLUE A

Recommendations:

The President should establish the university classroom utilization target at the existing THEC guideline. The THEC guideline is 30 hours per week and 67% of stations occupied for general classrooms, and 24 hours per week and 80% utilization for classrooms with laboratory equipment. This guideline is based on daytime hours 8 AM – 4 PM Monday – Thursday and 8 AM – 1:15 Friday, and should be applied on a per classroom basis.

Recommend processes to monitor adherence and exceptions to the THEC guideline on classroom and instructional laboratory space utilization.

Updates:

The Scheduling Center and EVPP Office are monitoring classroom use for adherence and exceptions to the THEC standards through spreadsheet analysis. Campus Planning and the EVPP Office are monitoring other academic spaces through PFI updates and EVPP walkthroughs.
Departments are encouraged to schedule all labs and course related events for inclusion in the consideration of 30 hour use between the hours of 8 and 4 Monday through Thursday, 8 - 1:15 Friday. Utilization of night and weekend hours will also be reviewed. The Scheduling Center has emailed procedures to schedule labs and course-related events to the committee to review before being distributed to departments.
The Scheduling Center is assisting departments in scheduling classes that will utilize 67% of the seat capacity in their first priority assignments before this becomes a requirement next year. Review of those classrooms where 67% is not maintained may indicate a mismatch of available capacity with university needs. The committee approved a capacity change process that will be extended to include requests for change in function. Both will be included in the web site for academic space http://www.mtsu.edu/~pvpaa/space.htm .

CLUE B

Recommendations:

Develop criteria for the restriction of classrooms for use by other departments. Evaluate all current restrictions for adherence to new criteria.
Recommend allocations of new and existing spaces, including the review of first priority allocations. (The CLUE committee supports the use of first priority allocations, but would recommend a review of current allocations on the basis of university goals.)

Develop standard definitions for all instructional spaces, for both types of spaces and features within spaces.

Recommend reconfiguration of instructional spaces based on university trends and goals.

Updates:

The number of restricted rooms has been reduced from 67% to 50%, with 65 additional restricted classrooms to be submitted to the Deans for additional review. Any modifications required for classroom to be unrestricted will be funded through the EVPP classroom maintenance account. The committee’s recommendation for the restriction (limited access) of classroom space is the safety of students and the safety of equipment (excluding master classroom technology). This unrestricting effort has increased the number of classrooms available for use during the peak times, and reduced the number of courses without classrooms during the initial scheduling period to 50% of previous years.
The committee will review first priority allocations of classroom space based on several criteria such as growth, enrollment, faculty, and programs. The committee’s discussions about allocations of space have initiated discussions outside the committee. For example, office spaces have been allocated to college level domains. The EVPP Office coordinates a space allocation process for the division that seeks CLUE committee input on instructional spaces, and follows college domains on other academic space. The EVPP Office recommends and decides future owners of new academic space, coordinating with the college deans. An official space allocation process has not yet been determined for the university. These have historically been decided at the President’s cabinet level.

CLUE C

Recommendations:

o Design a process to review modification of existing computer labs, such as the creation of new computer labs. Encourage departments to share existing instructional spaces.

ITD should publish a listing of university site licensed and other software with appropriate contact information.

Establish a base configuration for the computer hardware and software in all instructional spaces.

o Plan and implement tiers of computer labs, consolidating as necessary to provide access within available operational support, and to encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative interaction. (The CLUE committee supports the use of an existing lab for 24-7 student access.) Provide economic incentives, such as adequate staffing, regular upgrades, etc., for computer labs that consolidate into tiers. (TAF)

The Instructional Technology Committee should prioritize proposals for consolidated open computer labs and for multidisciplinary efforts higher than individual departmental proposals. (TAF)

o Develop recommendations for integrating new and developing technologies into the campus community; e.g. wireless connectivity. The recommendations should provide for the maximum accessibility to students. (TAF)

ITD develop a training program for all student lab assistants. (TAF)

The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) establish funding to provide appropriate operational support for open consolidated computer labs. (TAF)
EVPP equip open consolidated computer labs with discipline specific software as requested by students and faculty. (TAF)

EVPP establish economic incentives and university procedures to facilitate and overcome university barriers when developing collaborative or interdisciplinary courses, programs, and partnerships within the university.
EVPP encourage and promote faculty collaboration through incentive programs such as workload time and professional development opportunities. Make all incentive programs and procedures for collaboration available and visible to faculty.

Updates:

The Instructional Technology Committee (TAF) gives priority to collaborative or multidisciplinary projects. The committee will be requesting other funding committee give priority to multidisciplinary and collaborative projects. (TAF)
A new “collaboratory” is being discussed to experiment on multidisciplinary projects. This effort begins with a collaborative web site that will be expanded into a proposed faculty/student collaborative computer and technology lab.

Upon recommendation of the CLUE committee, the Instructional Technology Committee (TAF) conducted surveys about the open computer labs on campus and subsidized their budgets with TAF funds. The TAF committee encourages multidisciplinary proposals and discourages the creation of duplicate instructional spaces. (TAF)
The open computer labs were organized into tiers by the Instructional Technology Committee (TAF). These tiers are as follows: Tier zero funding to be determined: University Computer Lab in BAS. Tier one funded at 65%: Walker Library all floors, Education LRC 101, ADA in Walker Library. Tier two funded at 45%: Foreign Languages – BDA 303A, HPERS – AMG 204, Journalism – COMM 130, University Writing Center – Peck 326, Math – KOM 252/267, Nursing – CKNB 205, Computer Science - KOM 351, and Music – SFA 121. (TAF)

A listing of software supported by ITD can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~oitacad/itres/s_hware.html#software and a list of site licenses available at MTSU can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~oitsupp/software/
The base configuration for classroom technology can be accessed at http://www.mtsu.edu/~pvpaa/techacc/mcequip.htm

ITD is pursuing several wireless projects through TAF and other funding. (TAF)

CLUE R

Recommendations:

Information Technology Division (ITD) should develop a web-based report to provide information to manage instructional spaces, and for users to access for information about instructional space features.
The President should appoint a team, consisting of Campus Planning, Inventory, Scheduling Center, Facilities, a faculty member, and ITD. This team will:

Ø Conduct an annual walkthrough to update classroom information.

Ø Recommend improvements to the standing committee.

Ø Investigate bar-coding processes to better track inventory items.

Updates:

The prototype of the web-based report has been approved and will be implemented spring 2003. This database includes definitions for space types and features and will be confirmed by a walkthrough each semester by the EVP P Office. The Resource 25 web viewer supplements this report by making the classroom schedules available. The team suggested above will review the information for accuracy and to make recommendations. The faculty member will be chosen by the Faculty Senate President. Barcoding will be pursued as the budget permits.
An office listing is available at http://www.mtsu.edu/~pvpaa/space.htm for updating by the departments. Campus Planning will release PFI information to the departments for updating in April.